Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You haven't explained how it wouldn't. I have explained precisely how it would and I work in the system everyday.
I am not beyond saying some types of reform should not be considered. For example, perhaps there should be some pre-litigation screening of cases to try to determine if some do not have merit. Perhaps, after a case is filed, a judge could conduct a pretrial hearing and offer his opinion about the merits of the case. I'm open for different ideas if they are workable and if they do not keep meritorious cases out of court.
What I am not open for are laws that allow corporate America, the insurance industry to run roughshod over the rights of middle class people in this country. Loser-pay fits right into that category.
Last edited by markg91359; 12-27-2016 at 08:04 AM..
You want to see them stop? Take away the ability to file on a contingency basis. Make the ones that want to sue pay upfront.
Sorry disagree. Corporations will always win then, even legit cases.
BIG fines and summary judgements of stupidity absolutely. Even make it a "pre judge, legitimacy hearing judge" so as not to clog up courts.
Yes anecdotal but FWIW friends mom was like #3 of about 10 salespeople in sales. Co wanted to get rid of her at 19 years (of 20 for vesting) to avoid pension and fired her for "low sales". Idiots in the company didnt even hide the emails about it and the reasoning. Company didnt even fight once discovery brought the emails to light.
Sorry disagree. Corporations will always win then, even legit cases.
BIG fines and summary judgements of stupidity absolutely. Even make it a "pre judge, legitimacy hearing judge" so as not to clog up courts.
Yes anecdotal but FWIW friends mom was like #3 of about 10 salespeople in sales. Co wanted to get rid of her at 19 years (of 20 for vesting) to avoid pension and fired her for "low sales". Idiots in the company didnt even hide the emails about it and the reasoning. Company didnt even fight once discovery brought the emails to light.
^^^Yep. I've heard some doozeys over the years from both sides of the fence. People are every bit as greedy and corrupt as the corporations.
The tort system generally works. Trying to throw it out because it's not perfect would leave us with a bunch of other problems.
My only beef is that the politicians that put the laws and rules in place that cause higher claims....cause higher insurance premiums. When that happens and the public gets mad they generally try to scapegoat the insurance companies for "gouging". Florida homeowners insurance would pretty much be the poster child for that.
You make it easy to sue and get big paydays then be prepared to pay higher insurance costs *shrug*.
NJ eventually figured that out with auto insurance.
The man filing the suit did the math, and it reveals false advertising, which is against the law.
It's not false advertising.
If you go to a place that claims to have the "Best Burger in Town" and you hate the burger, and determine that there are many other superior burgers in town, do you believe that you will prevail in a false advertising lawsuit?
You haven't explained how it wouldn't. I have explained precisely how it would and I work in the system everyday.
I am not beyond saying some types of reform should not be considered. For example, perhaps there should be some pre-litigation screening of cases to try to determine if some do not have merit. Perhaps, after a case is filed, a judge could conduct a pretrial hearing and offer his opinion about the merits of the case. I'm open for different ideas if they are workable and if they do not keep meritorious cases out of court.
What I am not open for are laws that allow corporate America, the insurance industry to run roughshod over the rights of middle class people in this country. Loser-pay fits right into that category.
Where did you explain precisely how it would stop ordinary people from filing law suits. I would like to read it.
Where did you explain precisely how it would stop ordinary people from filing law suits. I would like to read it.
See posts #31 and #51.
I think all of us can agree that the court system does not always make the right decision in a case.
A lawyer for a person bringing a lawsuit would have to communicate that fact to any prospective client and would have to explain, in detail, that if the case is lost the other side could claim thousands of dollars in attorney's fees and court costs even in a routine case.
Put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary middle class person who has struggled to purchase a home and a couple of automobiles. Perhaps, they have $3,000 savings in the bank. Essentially, anytime such a person filed a lawsuit they would be putting all of these assets at risk. Lawyers who had their true interests at heart would try to persuade them not to file suit--even if they had a meritorious case. It would be unacceptable to virtually all of these people to take a 10%, a 20%, or perhaps a 30% chance that they could lose the case--despite being in the right--and risk losing all they had struggled to accumulate in life.
Among tort reform options, loser pay is probably the worst option of all unless someone simply wants to bring all lawsuits to an end--regardless of their merit.
Despite occasional frivolous cases, our current system serves us well. It has taken defective products off the market. It has caused people to think seriously about safety. It is a major reason that motor vehicle fatalities have declined, despite the fact that more cars are being driven more miles than ever before.
You might be interested in this article. The author is a libertarian and he believes in tort reform. Yet, he thinks loser pay is a very bad idea.
Ok, I can see that strict application of "loser pays" may have too many unintended consequences but the intent behind still has merit. There needs to be a mechanism to penalize those bringing cases without reasonable merit and causing innocent parties to pay thousands of dollars defending themselves despite them "being in the right". Perhaps "loser pays" could be an option exercised by judge/jury if the case is determined frivolous. Perhaps it could apply up to a cap or be percentage-based such that it doesn't wipe anyone out but definitely stings. Perhaps attorneys who bring such cases can be fined.
Defective products can and have been removed as a result of litigation by state attorney generals acting on consumer complaints. Motor vehicles have become safer in all countries including those without a strong civil court system. Much of that safety is due to regulations. Airbags and seat belt laws are responsible for much of that and neither were the product of a big payday lawsuit.
Speaking of that, I think "punitive damages" should go to the state. Actual damages should certainly go to the injured party but punitive damages are a "debt to society".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
